The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

Loading ...

Loading ...

This story appears in the {{article.article.magazine.pretty_date}} issue of {{article.article.magazine.pubName}}. Subscribe

[UPDATE: SOE President John Smedley has engaged me on Twitter concerning this article, and he's been very honest and transparent. As such, I've sprinkled the article with various replies from him. After all, there are at least two sides to every story.]

Hopefully this article doesn't become a magnet for vitriol and insult-flinging between peers, but it needs to be written. Yes, the headline is aggressive, but it's time a for wake up call. Because the business practices surrounding video games have jumped the shark, and I'm concerned that a large enough percentage of the video game-buying populace have lost their minds.

Paul Tassi just reported that Online Entertainment (SOE) has instituted "paid airdrops" into its Early Access version of upcoming MMO H1Z1. This effectively lets players buy air-dropped crates of ammo and guns, which introduces a decidedly blatant "pay-to-win" element.

On its own, that's a development decision I could have accepted by simply choosing to not support or play the game. But as it happens, it represents Sony breaking repeated promises to the public. In a Reddit post 8 months ago, SOE President John Smedley stated "We will NOT be selling Guns, Ammo, Food, Water...i.e. That's kind of the whole game and it would suck in our opinion if we did that."

An update within that same Reddit thread found Smedley even more determined to have H1Z1 dodge the pay-to-win trap. A direct quote: "We are not interested in selling weapons. Weapons are only acquired by crafting or exploring and finding one. We are not selling power."

Need something more recent? Here's two SOE developers reinforcing that idea only 3 days ago.

On this particular topic, Smedley has come to the developer's defense:

@killyourfm@Forbes also that video with Adam from a few days ago was simply him not even thinking about airdrops. that simple

(You'll notice that I pressed him regarding paid airdrops in the final release. Smedley indicated that they would be changed in some fashion to negate the pay to win aspect, but I'm waiting on a response detailing exactly how.)

Charging your potential player base to beta test your game is insulting enough, yet we see this tactic used all the time as a pre-order or purchase incentive ("Buy Halo: Master Chief Collection, get access to the Halo 5 Beta.") But when that game is slated to be free-to-play, it's downright infuriating. Is it that unreasonable to think they should actually be compensating you? So what adjective do we use to describe the act of endorsing and perpetuating these disgusting business practices by giving a publisher money for an unfinished free-to-play game?

Here's an adjective for you:

Hopefully SOE President Smedley is rapidly coming around to this failed logic, because Sony is now offering "no questions asked" refunds to players who paid for H1Z1's Early Access on Steam, saying via Reddit that "If you feel like the airdrops are an issue for you, you may immediately request a refund to bwilcox@soe.sony.com - this offer applies till Monday and it applies only to people that have purchased the game as of 10:30am Pacific today 1/16/2015.

Smedley argues via Twitter that the low refund request rate thus far indicates that most players are quite content with the airdrop situation.

@killyourfm@Forbes hah I bet you didn't think I'd answer that :) the answer is .5% - that's a real number as of this tweet.

Interestingly, one aspect of my Twitter conversation with Smedley revolved around the game's funding, and he admits that "if we could fund H1Z1 another way I would have preferred it." Did someone at Sony refuse to fund the game traditionally? And for what reasons? Then in another tweet he's somewhat dismissive about the $20 asking price, saying "if it's a lot of money to some people they shouldn't spend it. To me it's the cost of a movie."

To be clear, I'm not indicting the concept of Early Access here. I think the ability for studios to have 2-way conversations with its player base during the development process is invaluable. Provided they appreciate how valuable that input is. Charging your players for the privilege, however, is borderline criminal when the final product will be free.

Even worse, in my opinion, is that people are supporting that with their wallets. Remove the pay-to-win scenario, remove the broken promises, and it's still a ludicrous proposition. It's an abusive relationship and you're paying for the opportunity to have one. Your trust, your time, and your money need to be earned. That's why when companies like Blizzard do free-to-play properly, we cheerily throw down $639.

Between these Early Access shenanigans and repeated pre-order and pre-purchase abuse (see: Evolve), we are inviting publishers to walk all over us, rather than being the collective voice with power and influence. I take that back. We have influence, we're just influencing the wrong things.

Please remember that pre-purchasing a game -- especially a digital copy -- is the equivalent of buying an unfinished product with no guarantee of a refund if it launches completely broken (see: Halo Master Chief Collection). And please remember that -- as Double Fine showed us -- just because you pay money for an Early Access game doesn't mean the developers have to actually finish it. Why on earth are we ok with this?